Is consistency good?

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 19 November 2008. We have a record turnout of 10 persons. A popular vote decides our question for the evening: Is consistency good?

We begin by defining the key words:

Consistency =df. The same action or thought in the same person, in the same context, in the same life.

Good =df. Desirable by society and the individual. (Here, we decide that it cannot be desirable only by the individual, as that would reduce everything to pure subjectivity, and thereby obviate all discussion.)

Desirable =df. Ought to be desired.

A first suggestion is that consistency is not good because it would make the world boring. We object that it will not make the world boring -- for two reasons. The first reason is that one can be consistently creative, and hence be not boring. The second reason is that while our definition of consistency specifies the same action or thought in the same person, our definition does allow variety across individuals -- thus making the world not boring. This first suggestion is defeated.

The second argument is two-pronged. First, if one is consistently good eg. being kind, then that is a good thing. Second, if one is cosistently evil, there can still be some eventual good. For example, if a serial rapist commits the crime evey full moon, that consistency of action allows women to know to stay indoors each full moon, and allows the police to know to be alert for him each full moon (and eventually capture him). So, since both possibilities are covered, we can conclude that consistency is good, even if only eventually.

We object that we can just as easily find examples to show that consistency is bad. If poker players consistently fold when they get dealt a poor hand, there will be no poker games. If all similar movies have consistently similar endings, and never any surprise twist endings, then movies would be extremely boring.

We wonder if constantly conjuring up examples pro and con is the way to approach this question. We wonder if we can address the question without using examples.

We come up with a "Kantian" suggestion, making use of his famous Categorical Imperative.

[Some background is needed here for readers not acquainted with academic philosophy. According to the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), a rule qualifies as a moral rule if and only if it can be applied to everyone without self-contradiction. The rule "always tell the truth" satisfies this test, and is a moral rule. The rule "always tell a lie" would, if extended to everyone, result in social chaos -- and thus does not satisfy this test, making it nor a moral rule. This test for a moral rule is known as Kant's Categorial Imperative.]

Here's the argument:

1. The Categorical Imperative is needed to create a moral world.
2. The Categorical Imperative requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.

We notice that this argument can be expanded to morality in general, making the argument more powerful.

1. Morality is needed to create a moral world.
2. Morality requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.

Then, disturbingly, we notice that egoism is also a recognised system of morality. Egoism is the principle that what is good is what is good for each subjective "me" regardless of any or all others. But this cannot be desirable by society, and hence by our definition is not good.

We end our discussion here. It has been a fantastic session.

Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 December 2008. See you there!